Eurispes is a well-known institute for social studies, researches
and surveys. Every year they publish a bulky book titled "Rapporto
Italia" [Italy Report, or Italy Files], a shitload of data,
surveys, essays on the phenomena and trends Eurispes considers
the most important in Italian culture and society. The Rapporto
is invariably used as a reference book (and a primary source for
further research work) by journalists, sociologists, economists
and various kinds of scholars.

Well, the funny thing is that the last Rapporto contains a long
section (almost 70k bytes) titled "The Invisible Insurrection",
completely dedicated to Luther Blissett! It is one of the most
complex critical essays on LBP ever published, which "consecrates"
our avatar as one of the most relevant phenomena of Italian culture.
Some journalists were stunned by LB's presence in the Rapporto.
On January 29 they were attending the official presentation of
the book at the University of Rome, skimming through the pages,
found the chapter and... Geez!
An excerpt from "L'insurrezione invisibile":

'This way of crossing and superceding the usual dichotomies
of contemporary society (singularity/multitude, individual/community,
true/false) [was] the invariance of all subsequent experiments
signed by "Luther Blissett", and any research work
that does not take this aspect into consideration is doomed to
fail. Luther Blissett has always tended to pass over (or "short-circuit",
it depends on the point of view) all cultural and disciplinary
separations, and solve in an experimental way the social contradictions
generated by separation. Since 1995 [the Luther Blissett's name]
has been adopted by thousands of people all over the world, and
established itself as collective, anonymous, transnational project
which makes use of all the existing media, even the most underestimated
or even ignored ones (urban legends, mail art, bulletin boards,
graffiti, fanzines). [Luther Blissett] managed to go through
the most different territories of communication, without any
embarassment. It's precisely this cultural nomadism the base
of Blissett's shifting identity, which proved to be adverse to
academic investigations. For instance, think of the phrases that
the newspapers used to describe this anthropomorphized project:
"cognitive dissident", "psycho-informatic pirate",
"cyber-pirate", "leader of the net-gener@tion",
"media terrorist", "cultural terrorist",
"cerebral terrorist", "guerrilla semiologist",
"media chaos cultist", "art conjuror", "transgender
militant", "Fantomas of pranks", "fake scoop
manifacturer", "global performance", "philosofical
sect", "polimorphous musician" and so on. All
these definitions were invariably disavowed by Blissett, yet
their variety bears witness for the impossibility of describing
this experience once and for all. Moreover, as they stated themselves
in several writings and interviews, the multi-use-name bearers
are never the same, do not know each other and their respective
activities are completely different.'